TO: The President of the Navajo NationThe Attorney General of the Navajo Nation

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, pursuant to 1 N.N.C. § 555(A) (2005), that The Forgotten People and Don Yellowman, on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of the beneficiaries of the Navajo Rehabilitation Trust Fund, desire to institute suit against the Navajo Nation or its officers, employees or agents, and the prospective plaintiffs give notice that amends its prior notice dated October 22, 2010, retroactive to such date, follows:

Prospective Plaintiffs

The prospective parties include all those impacted by the proposed Twin Arrows Casino or who are denied the benefit of the income and investment from it, as previously stated.

Prospective Defendants

The prospective defendants are the same as in the prior notice.

Nature of Claims

The August 25, 2010 special warranty deed to the “Navajo Nation of Indians (the ‘Navajo Nation’)” created a covenant that runs with the land, deed restriction, or other special condition, that “the Twin Arrows Parcel shall be used solely for the benefit of Navajo families ... awaiting relocation....” That is a specific trust in their favor.

The claim stated in the prior notice is restated here, that there is an equitable resulting trust in favor of Navajos for whom the lands were set aside. They are the victims of the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute, beneficiaries of legislation for their benefit, and the refugees or survivors of the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute and the Bennett Freeze. Their situation, and the purposes of the tract of land, create a resulting trust in their favor.

There is also a social trust on that tract of land that arises from the aboriginal rights of the refugee-survivors of the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute, their suffering, their neglect by governments (including their own Navajo Nation government), and arises from a natural law social mortgage.

Given the current political situation of the Navajo Nation and past financing issues with casinos the prospective plaintiffs will also examine fiduciary issues regarding Twin Arrows and compliance with financial statutes and controls, and assert claims as needed.

Relief to be Sought

The prospective plaintiffs seek the relief previously stated, without any limitation on potential relief.

Plaintiffs’ Attorney

The prospective plaintiffs’ attorney is as previously stated and other potential attorneys.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA,IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCONINO and

DON YELLOWMAN,

Respondents.

AFFIDAVIT IN RETURN TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DON YELLOWMAN, the named real party in interest, makes this affidavit to appear and makes return to the order to show cause directed against him, without appearing for the purposes of jurisdiction, to contest the jurisdiction of this honorable court over him and over the cause of action, and to contest the merits, and he states as follows:

STATE OF ARIZONA :: ss.County of Coconino :

1. I am an enrolled member of the Navajo Tribe of Indians or Navajo Nation, and at all times relevant to this action I resided at Tuba City, within the Navajo Nation.2. The facts and matters in the lis pendens that the petitioner claims are solely an internal matter involving members of the Navajo Tribe of Indians or Navajo Nation and their government that involve claims of impropriety by an entity of the Navajo Nation in the operation of a proposed Casino located on what is now federal Indian trust land.3. This court does not have jurisdiction over matters affecting tribal members and their Indian tribes under the Constitution of the United States and disclaimers of jurisdiction by the State of Arizona.4. The lis pendens in this case asserts facts and matters arising from litigation in the Navajo Nation and this court does not have jurisdiction to second-guess the Navajo Nation judicial system on the nature of matters pending before it.5. The lis pendens notifies the public of pending and prospective litigation and the same is proper under § 12-1191, A.R.S. as “notice of the pendency of ... action or defense.”6. I am the chief officer of an unincorporated association of Navajos called “The Forgotten People,” an organization that advocates for the survivors of the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute.7. It is a public interest organization and I have exercised my rights of freedom of association and free speech in asserting what I believe are valid claims on behalf of fellow Navajos, my grassroots organization and myself.8. Such claims are stated in the lis pendens, in terms of not only claims asserted in litigation pending in the Courts of the Navajo Nation over facts and matters within its exclusive jurisdiction but in terms of a resulting trust on casino assets and proceeds in favor of Navajos, and specifically Navajos awaiting relocation (as stated in the Navajo Nation’s deed).9. Our October 22, 2010 notice of claim against the Navajo Nation gives it notice that the lis pendens involves the Navajo Rehabilitation Trust Fund and a resulting trust.10. I have given subsequent notice, for The Forgotten People, of additional claims against the Navajo Nation under federal legislation for the benefit of Navajos impacted by the Navajo-Hopi land dispute, an equitable resulting trust on casino land and assets, and a social trust on the land that arises from the aboriginal rights of Navajos who survived the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute.11. We are awaiting the expiry of statutory deadlines before filing suit on both claims.12. The lis pendens is not a misstatement or false claim under the provisions of § 33-420(A), A.R.S., and in any event, this court does not have jurisdiction to assess the merits or not of the claim because it is one between a tribe and its members and one subject only to the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation.13. I was served with process in this matter by a Navajo Nation private process server at the home of my parents in Tuba City, Navajo Nation.14. I am a Navajo Indian, and I cannot be served with Arizona State process within my Indian reservation, Navajo Indian Country. See State v. Zaman, 946 P.2d 459 (1997) (collecting cases that show that Indians cannot be served with Arizona process in Indian Country).15. The Navajo Nation Council enacted legislation, codified at 7 N.N.C.§ 253a(I) (2005), that prohibits the service of State process in the Navajo Nation without approval by a Navajo Nation court.16. A Navajo Nation court cannot order the service of process where the foreign tribunal does not have jurisdiction or the service of such process violates Navajo Nation public policy. 7 N.N.C. § 253a(I)(4) (2005).17. The question of such service is solely a matter within the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation judicial system.18. There is no proof that a Navajo Nation court approved service in this case, and in any event, the court could not approve service of process where this court lacks jurisdiction.19. The affiant must be given an opportunity to attack an illegal court order if such approval was given.20. The statute that prohibits service of process was enacted pursuant to provisions of the Navajo Nation-United States Treaty of 1868 and that is why the statute binds this court.21. The Attorney General of the Navajo Nation is the sole legal officer of the Navajo Nation, and the purported counsel for the petitioner Nation has not produced proof of its authority under Navajo Nation law.22. The court should dismiss this action because it lacks jurisdiction, because there are no violations of Arizona lis pendens statutes, and because the lis pendens is protected by the fundamental rights of freedom of association, free speech, and the rights of American Indians under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Arizona.23. I reserve the right to claim damages against the Navajo Nation for wrongfully bringing this action and to offset any illegal damages that may be granted by this court, in the Courts of the Navajo Nation.24. I made this affidavit before an Arizona State notary because Navajo Nation law does not provide for notaries or other private persons who can administer oaths.

______________________________________________________Don Yellowman

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public for the State of Arizona, on this _____ day of November, 2010.

______________________________________________________Notary Public for the State of ArizonaResiding at:My commission expires:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONACOUNTY OF COCONINO

THE NAVAJO NATION,

Petitioner, No. CV 2010-00997

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA,IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCONINO and

DON YELLOWMAN,

Respondents.

AFFIDAVIT IN RETURN TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DON YELLOWMAN, the named real party in interest, makes this affidavit to appear and makes return to the order to show cause directed against him, without appearing for the purposes of jurisdiction, to contest the jurisdiction of this honorable court over him and over the cause of action, and to contest the merits, and he states as follows:

STATE OF ARIZONA :: ss.County of Coconino :

1. I am an enrolled member of the Navajo Tribe of Indians or Navajo Nation, and at all times relevant to this action I resided at Tuba City, within the Navajo Nation.2. The facts and matters in the lis pendens that the petitioner claims are solely an internal matter involving members of the Navajo Tribe of Indians or Navajo Nation and their government that involve claims of impropriety by an entity of the Navajo Nation in the operation of a proposed Casino located on what is now federal Indian trust land.3. This court does not have jurisdiction over matters affecting tribal members and their Indian tribes under the Constitution of the United States and disclaimers of jurisdiction by the State of Arizona.4. The lis pendens in this case asserts facts and matters arising from litigation in the Navajo Nation and this court does not have jurisdiction to second-guess the Navajo Nation judicial system on the nature of matters pending before it.5. The lis pendens notifies the public of pending and prospective litigation and the same is proper under § 12-1191, A.R.S. as “notice of the pendency of ... action or defense.”6. I am the chief officer of an unincorporated association of Navajos called “The Forgotten People,” an organization that advocates for the survivors of the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute.7. It is a public interest organization and I have exercised my rights of freedom of association and free speech in asserting what I believe are valid claims on behalf of fellow Navajos, my grassroots organization and myself.8. Such claims are stated in the lis pendens, in terms of not only claims asserted in litigation pending in the Courts of the Navajo Nation over facts and matters within its exclusive jurisdiction but in terms of a resulting trust on casino assets and proceeds in favor of Navajos, and specifically Navajos awaiting relocation (as stated in the Navajo Nation’s deed).9. Our October 22, 2010 notice of claim against the Navajo Nation gives it notice that the lis pendens involves the Navajo Rehabilitation Trust Fund and a resulting trust.10. I have given subsequent notice, for The Forgotten People, of additional claims against the Navajo Nation under federal legislation for the benefit of Navajos impacted by the Navajo-Hopi land dispute, an equitable resulting trust on casino land and assets, and a social trust on the land that arises from the aboriginal rights of Navajos who survived the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute.11. We are awaiting the expiry of statutory deadlines before filing suit on both claims.12. The lis pendens is not a misstatement or false claim under the provisions of § 33-420(A), A.R.S., and in any event, this court does not have jurisdiction to assess the merits or not of the claim because it is one between a tribe and its members and one subject only to the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation.13. I was served with process in this matter by a Navajo Nation private process server at the home of my parents in Tuba City, Navajo Nation.14. I am a Navajo Indian, and I cannot be served with Arizona State process within my Indian reservation, Navajo Indian Country. See State v. Zaman, 946 P.2d 459 (1997) (collecting cases that show that Indians cannot be served with Arizona process in Indian Country).15. The Navajo Nation Council enacted legislation, codified at 7 N.N.C.§ 253a(I) (2005), that prohibits the service of State process in the Navajo Nation without approval by a Navajo Nation court.16. A Navajo Nation court cannot order the service of process where the foreign tribunal does not have jurisdiction or the service of such process violates Navajo Nation public policy. 7 N.N.C. § 253a(I)(4) (2005).17. The question of such service is solely a matter within the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation judicial system.18. There is no proof that a Navajo Nation court approved service in this case, and in any event, the court could not approve service of process where this court lacks jurisdiction.19. The affiant must be given an opportunity to attack an illegal court order if such approval was given.20. The statute that prohibits service of process was enacted pursuant to provisions of the Navajo Nation-United States Treaty of 1868 and that is why the statute binds this court.21. The Attorney General of the Navajo Nation is the sole legal officer of the Navajo Nation, and the purported counsel for the petitioner Nation has not produced proof of its authority under Navajo Nation law.22. The court should dismiss this action because it lacks jurisdiction, because there are no violations of Arizona lis pendens statutes, and because the lis pendens is protected by the fundamental rights of freedom of association, free speech, and the rights of American Indians under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Arizona.23. I reserve the right to claim damages against the Navajo Nation for wrongfully bringing this action and to offset any illegal damages that may be granted by this court, in the Courts of the Navajo Nation.24. I made this affidavit before an Arizona State notary because Navajo Nation law does not provide for notaries or other private persons who can administer oaths.

______________________________________________________Don Yellowman

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public for the State of Arizona, on this _____ day of November, 2010.

______________________________________________________Notary Public for the State of ArizonaResiding at:My commission expires:

Censored News Blog Radio

Donate to Censored News

Censored News Homepage

About Censored News

Censored News is published by censored journalist Brenda Norrell. A journalist for 27 years, Brenda lived on the Navajo Nation for 18 years, writing for Navajo Times, AP, USA Today, Lakota Times and other American Indian publications. After being censored and then terminated by Indian Country Today in 2006, she began the Censored Blog to document the most censored issues. She currently serves as human rights editor for the U.N. OBSERVER & International Report at the Hague and contributor to Sri Lanka Guardian, Narco News and CounterPunch. She was cohost of the 5-month Longest Walk Talk Radio across America, with Earthcycles Producer Govinda Dalton in 2008: www.earthcycles.net/COPYRIGHTS All material is copyrighted by the author or photographer. Please contact each contributor for reprint permission. brendanorrell@gmail.comAudios may not be sold or used for commercial purposes.

"O FRIEND! In the garden of thy heart plant naught but the rose of love, and from the nightingale of affection and desire loosen not thy hold." --Baha'u'llah, Baha'i Faith